Table of Contents
ISRN Education
Volume 2014, Article ID 736931, 11 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/736931
Research Article

Tool Use in Computer-Based Learning Environments: Adopting and Extending the Technology Acceptance Model

1Center for Instruction Psychology and Technology, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
2Leuven Language Institute, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
3Interdisciplinary Research Team on Technology, Education and Communication-IBBT, KU Leuven-kulak, 8500 Kortrijk, Belgium

Received 13 November 2013; Accepted 29 December 2013; Published 11 February 2014

Academic Editors: M. Akman, S. Cessna, and K. Kiewra

Copyright © 2014 N. A. Juarez Collazo et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. M. D. Bush and J. D. Mott, “The transformation of learning with technology: learner-centricity, content and tool malleability, and network effects,” Educational Technology Magazine, pp. 3–19, 2009. View at Google Scholar
  2. F. D. Davis, “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 319–339, 1989. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. F. D. Davis, R. P. Bagozzi, and P. R. Warshaw, “User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models,” Management Science, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 982–1003, 1989. View at Google Scholar
  4. Y. Li, J. Qi, and H. Shu, “Review of relationships among variables in TAM,” Tsinghua Science and Technology, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 273–278, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. P. Legris, J. Ingham, and P. Collerette, “Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model,” Information and Management, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 191–204, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. D. N. Perkins, “The fingertip effect: how information-processing technology shapes thinking,” Educational Researcher, vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 11–17, 1985. View at Google Scholar
  7. V. Aleven, E. Stahl, S. Schworm, F. Fischer, and R. Wallace, “Help seeking and help design in interactive learning environments,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 277–320, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. G. Clarebout and J. Elen, “Tool use in computer-based learning environments: towards a research framework,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 389–411, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. V. Venkatesh and F. D. Davis, “Theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies,” Management Science, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 186–204, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis, “User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 425–478, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. V. Venkatesh and H. Bala, “Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions,” Decision Sciences, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 273–315, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. J. Bourgonjon, M. Valcke, R. Soetaert, and T. Schellens, “Students' perceptions about the use of video games in the classroom,” Computers and Education, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 1145–1156, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. I. Ajzen and M. Fishbein, Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1980.
  14. K. A. Pituch and Y. K. Lee, “The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use,” Computers and Education, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 222–244, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. K. Mathieson, “Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior,” Information Systems Research, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 173–191, 1991. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. P. R. Warshaw and F. D. Davis, “Disentangling behavioral intention and behavioral expectation,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 213–228, 1985. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. M. Bannert, M. Hildebrand, and C. Mengelkamp, “Effects of a metacognitive support device in learning environments,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 829–835, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. J. Zumbach, “The role of graphical and text based argumentation tools in hypermedia learning,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 811–817, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. R. Azevedo, “Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning,” Educational Psychologist, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 199–209, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. M. Liu and S. Bera, “An analysis of cognitive tool use patterns in a hypermedia learning environment,” Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 5–21, 2005. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. T. Iiyoshi, M. J. Hannafin, and F. Wang, “Cognitive tools and student-centred learning: rethinking tools, functions and applications,” Educational Media International, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 281–296, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  22. T. Iiyoshi and M. J. Hannafin, “Cognitive tools for open-ended learning environments: theoretical and implementation perspectives,” in Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, Calif, USA, 1998.
  23. G. Clarebout and J. Elen, “The complexity of tool use in computer-based learning environments,” Instructional Science, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 475–486, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. B. D. Pulford, “The influence of advice in a virtual learning environment,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 31–39, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. C. Gräsel, F. Fischer, and H. Mandl, “The use of additional information in problem-oriented learning environments,” Learning Environments Research, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 287–305, 2000. View at Google Scholar
  26. N. A. Juarez Collazo, J. Elen, and G. Clarebout, “To use or not to use tools in interactive learning environments: a question of self-efficacy?” The Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 810–817, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  27. P. H. Winne, “Steps toward promoting cognitive achievements,” The Elementary School Journal, vol. 85, no. 5, pp. 673–693, 1985. View at Google Scholar
  28. H. van der Meij, J. van der Meij, and R. Harmsen, “Animated pedagogical agents: do they advance student motivation and learning in an inquiry learning environment?” Tech. Rep. TR-CTIT-12-02, Centre for Telematics and Information Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  29. P. H. Gerjets and F. W. Hesse, “When are powerful learning environments effective? The role of learner activities and of students' conceptions of educational technology,” International Journal of Educational Research, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 445–465, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. A. Bandura, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, NY, USA, 1997.
  31. P. K. Murphy and P. A. Alexander, “A motivated exploration of motivation terminology,” Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 3–53, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. K. S. Hong, J. L. A. Cheng, and T. L. Liau, “Effects of system's and user's characteristics on e-learning use: a study at Universiti Malaysia Sarawak,” Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 1–25, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  33. L. Luyten, J. Lowyck, and F. Tuerlinckx, “Task perception as a mediating variable: a contribution to the validation of instructional knowledge,” British Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 203–223, 2001. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. P. H. Winne and R. W. Marx, Students' Cognitive Processes While Learning From Teaching. Final Report, Instructional Psychology Research Group, Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, Canada, 1983.
  35. P. H. Winne, “Why process-product research cannot explain process-product findings and a proposed remedy: the cognitive mediational paradigm,” Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 333–356, 1987. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. P. H. Winne, “Minimizing the black box problem to enhance the validity of theories about instructional effects,” Instructional Science, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 13–28, 1982. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. J. Lowyck, J. Elen, and G. Clarebout, “Instructional conceptions: analysis from an instructional design perspective,” International Journal of Educational Research, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 429–444, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. F. Pajares, “Self-efficacy in academic settings,” in Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, Calif, USA, 1995. View at Google Scholar
  39. X. Wu, J. Lowyck, L. Sercu, and J. Elen, “Task complexity, student perceptions of vocabulary learning in EFL, and task performance,” British Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 160–181, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  40. E. A. Linnenbrink and P. R. Pintrich, “Multiple goals, multiple contexts: the dynamic interplay between personal goals and contextual goal stresses,” in Motivation in Learning Contexts:Theoretical and Methodological Implications, S. E. Volet and S. Järvelä, Eds., Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2001. View at Google Scholar
  41. R. Viau and J. Larivée, “Learning tools with hypertext: an experiment,” Computers and Education, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 11–16, 1993. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. L. Jiang and J. Elen, “Instructional effectiveness of higher-order questions: the devil is in the detail of students' use of questions,” Learning Environments Research, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 279–298, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. N. A. Juarez Collazo, J. Elen, and G. Clarebout, “Perceptions for tool use: in search of a tool use model,” in Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, pp. 2905–2912, 2012.
  44. N. C. Goodwin, “Functionality and usability,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 229–233, 1987. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. M. Igbaria, S. Parasuraman, and J. J. Baroudi, “A motivational model of microcomputer usage,” Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 127–143, 1996. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. T. Teo, “Is there an attitude problem? Reconsidering the role of attitude in the TAM,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1139–1141, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. N. Nistor and J. O. Heymann, “Reconsidering the role of attitude in the TAM: an answer to Teo (2009a),” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. E142–E145, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. Ö.F. Ursavaş, “Reconsidering the role of attitude in the TAM: an answer to Teo (2009) and Nistor and Heymann (2010), and Lopez-Bonilla and Lopez-Bonilla (2011),” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. E22–E25, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  49. S. S. Al-Gahtani and M. King, “Attitudes, satisfaction and usage: factors contributing to each in the acceptance of information technology,” Behaviour and Information Technology, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 277–297, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  50. F. D. Davis, R. P. Bagozzi, and P. R. Warshaw, “Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 22, no. 14, pp. 1111–1132, 1992. View at Google Scholar
  51. V. Cho, T. C. E. Cheng, and W. M. J. Lai, “The role of perceived user-interface design in continued usage intention of self-paced e-learning tools,” Computers and Education, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 216–227, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  52. D. Raes, S. Geerts, and E. Vanuytrecht, “Waarom water broodnodig is,” Bio-Ingenieus, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 2–4, 2009. View at Google Scholar
  53. J. Novak and A. Cañas, “The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them,” Tech. Rep. 2006-01 Rev 01-2008, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition (IHMC), Pensacola, Fla, USA, 2008, http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMapsHQ.pdf.
  54. J. Novak and D. B. Gowin, Learning How to Learn, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 1984.
  55. M. A. Ruiz-Primo, “Examining concept maps as an assessment tool,” in Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Concept Mapping, Pamplona, Spain, 2004.
  56. P. R. Pintrich, D. Smith, T. Garcia, and W. McKeachie, A Manual for the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ), National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning (NCRIPTAL), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich, USA, 1991.
  57. K. R. Lodewyk and P. H. Winne, “Relations among the structure of learning tasks, achievement, and changes in self-efficacy in secondary students,” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 97, no. 1, pp. 3–12, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  58. O. Behling and K. S. Law, Translating Questionnaires and Other Research Instruments: Problems and Solutions, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif, USA, 2000.
  59. J. Jaccard and C. K. Wan, LISREL Approaches to Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif, USA, 1996.
  60. K. L. Ingram, J. G. Cope, B. L. Harju, and K. L. Wuensch, “Applying to graduate school: a test of the theory of planned behavior,” Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 215–226, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  61. P. S. Petraitis, A. E. Dunham, and P. H. Niewiarowski, “Inferring multiple causality: the limitations of path analysis,” Functional Ecology, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 421–431, 1996. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  62. A. Field, Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, SAGE, London, UK, 3rd edition, 2009.
  63. S. H. Lau and P. C. Woods, “An investigation of user perceptions and attitudes towards learning objects,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 685–699, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  64. T. Teo, “Examining the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: an integration of the technology acceptance model and theory of planned behavior,” Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 3–18, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  65. Y. Gao, “Applying the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to educational hypermedia: a field study,” Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 237–247, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  66. G. Clarebout and J. Elen, “Tool use in open learning environments: in search of learner-related determinants,” Learning Environments Research, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 163–178, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  67. M. D. Merrill, “Learner control in computer based learning,” Computers and Education, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 77–95, 1980. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  68. Y. B. Lee and J. D. Lehman, “Instructional cuing in hypermedia: a study with active and passive learners,” Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 25–37, 1993. View at Google Scholar
  69. C. A. Carrier, G. V. Davidson, M. D. Williams, and C. M. Kalweit, “Instructional options and encouragement effects in a microcomputer-delivered concept lesson,” The Journal of Educational Research, vol. 79, no. 4, pp. 222–229, 1986. View at Google Scholar
  70. G. Lust, N. A. Juarez Collazo, J. Elen, and G. Clarebout, “Content management systems: enriched learning opportunities for all?” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 795–808, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  71. M. Hannafin, S. Land, and K. Oliver, “Open learning environments: foundations, methods and models,” in Instructional Design, Theories and Models, C. M. Reigeluth, Ed., pp. 115–140, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1999. View at Google Scholar
  72. T. E. Raphael and P. D. Pearson, “Increasing students' awareness of sources of information for answering questions,” The American Educational Research Journal, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 217–235, 1985. View at Google Scholar
  73. J. Sweller, J. G. van Merrienboer, and F. G. W. C. Paas, “Cognitive architecture and instructional design,” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 251–296, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  74. M. E. Gist, C. K. Stevens, and A. G. Bavetta, “Effects of self-efficacy and post-training intervention on the acquisition and maintenance of complex interpersonal skills,” Personnel Psychology, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 837–861, 1991. View at Google Scholar
  75. M. van Dinther, F. Dochy, and M. Segers, “Factors affecting students' self-efficacy in higher education,” Educational Research Review, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 95–108, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  76. A. Gegenfurtner, K. Veermans, and M. Vauras, “Effects of computer support, collaboration, and time lag on performance self-efficacy and transfer of training: a longitudinal meta-analysis,” Educational Research Review, vol. 8, pp. 75–89, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  77. M. Romero and E. Barberà, “Quality of e-learners' time and learning performance beyond quantitative time-on-task,” International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 125–137, 2011. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus